= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
drnickbone comments on Separating the roles of theory and direct empirical evidence in belief formation: the examples of minimum wage and anthropogenic global warming - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (65)
I'm sorry, I didn't realize 'within a few years' was so vague in English that it could easily embrace decades and I'm being tendentious in thinking that after 14 years we can safely call that prediction failed.
So first, that's 'air frost' ("usually defined as the air temperature being below freezing point of water at a height of at least one metre above the ground"), which is not what was in question. Second, looking at 2.32, the decline 2000-2007 (when the graph ends, so fully half the period in question when warming seems to have stopped) is far from impressive. Third, what's with it being 'filtered'? some sort of linear smoothing borrowing from the steeper-looking decline 1984-2000?
No, I'm fine with your chosen smoothed graphs indicating only a shallow decline at best 2000-2007. No need to look just at 2010-2014, although certainly more recent data would probably help here.
That sounds like wishful thinking. In those graphs, is there any 5-year period which if repeated would abruptly vindicate the confident predictions from 2000 that snow would soon be a thing of the past in England?
P.S. On the more technical points, the 2009 reports do not appear to plot the number of days of snow cover or cold spells (unlike the 2006 report) so I simply referred to the closest proxies which are plotted.
The "filtering" is indeed a form of local smoothing transform (other parts of the report refer to decadal smoothing) and this would explains why the graphs stop in 2007, rather than 2009: you really need a few years either side of the plotted year to do the smoothing. I can't see any evidence that the decline in the 80s was somehow factored into the plot in the 2000s.
Seems like a bad proxy to me. Is snowfall really that hard a metric to find...?
If the window is a decade back then the '90s will still be affecting the '00s since it only goes up to 2007.
I think it may depend on how exactly the smoothing was being done. If it's a smoothing like a LOESS then I'd expect the '00s raw data to be pulled up to the somewhat higher '90s data; but if the regression best-fit line is involved then I'd expect the other direction.
Presumably not, though since I'm not making up Met Office evidence (and don't have time to do my own analysis) I can only comment on the graphs which they themselves chose to plot in 2009. Snowfall was not one of those graphs (whereas it was in 2006).
However, the graphs of mean winter temperature, maximum winter temperature, and minimum winter temperature all point to the same trend as the air frost and heating-degree-day graphs. It would be surprising if numbers of days of snowfall were moving against that trend.
Interesting. I wonder why they're no longer plotting some trends. Maybe because it's too hard to fit them into their preferred narrative.
Or moving from conspiracy land, big budget cuts to climate research starting in 2009 might have something to do with it.
P.S. Since you started this sub-thread and are clearly still following it, are you going to retract your claims that CRU predicted "no more snow in Britain" or that Hansen predicted Manhattan would be underwater by now? Or are you just going to re-introduce those snippets in a future conversation, and hope no-one checks?
I was going from memory, now that I've tracked down the actual links I'd modify the claims what was actually said, i.e., snowfalls becoming exceedingly rare and the West Side Highway being underwater.
Thanks.... Upvoted for honest admission of error.